In other words, this is a less-good version of existing battery-powered bikes. And you have to push 65lb of scooter home up that hill, with little piddling wheels in a configuration which makes it naturally unstable. But once this scooter runs out of batteries, you're screwed, stuck, dead-in-the-water, etc.
And if it really goes wrong, you've got 30lb of bike and batteries to push home, on large wheels designed to naturally cope with obstacles. 17 miles on a level, smooth surface is no big deal - let's wait and see how much they get on a real surface, or on anything with an incline.īattery-assist bikes are a cool idea - they can give you some help up the hill whilst you still pedal, so you're still supplying over 50% of the energy, and even if the battery dies then you can still carry on under your own power. This scooter will run out of power on the first hill.
#Nifty gay stories slash tires seat crack
Certainly carrying it up stairs is a non-starter.īatteries won't last - it'll need an order of magnitude improvement in battery technology to crack that problem. You can't carry it in both hands for more distance than a quick stagger. Or at least it will be after the first person is killed by some asshole riding at 17mph along a sidewalk - 65lbs of scooter and 150-200lbs of person travelling at 17mph don't just _stop_, even with gyros.Ħ5lbs is _bloody_ _heavy_ - think typical all-up weight of gear carried by a soldier in one of those large rucksacks. If they currently manage to get through some loophole through being electrically-powered, chances are the loophole will be closed shortly. These are electrically-powered motor-scooters, and will be treated as such. If you're moving at 17mph, you're not a pedestrian.
But it's my belief that, given the smaller margin for error, the same poor decision in a car (driving while drunk, for example) is much more likely to result in your death than the same poor decision on a motorcycle. Motorcycles are definitely more dangerous than cars (especially when you apply my same "lifestyle" choices to your car driving - eschew driving drunk, for example). If you control for smoking (a "lifestyle choice") your main risk is heart disease, not cancer. Many women hear that and think "breast cancer!" But, in fact, the issue is lung cancer, since something like half of American women alive now smoked at some time in their lives. It's much like the situation we have now - the highest risk cause of death for American women of all ages is cancer of one form or another. But much of that risk is entirely within your control. So, anyway, yes, motorcycles are statistically much more dangerous than cars. I've ridden across the Arizona desert in August like that, during the day (although I can't say it was pleasant - or, frankly, a rational choice about when to ride ). I do not get on my bike without leather jackets, boots and gloves a full-face Snell-approved helmet and (at the very least) kevlar reinforced jeans. It seems very clear to me that at least 50% of the motorcycle fatalaties and perhaps as many as 75% - 80% could be completely eliminated by intelligent analysis of the risks and making rational choices about how and when to ride. three quarters, wearing leathers, eye protection, gloves, boots, etc. While there are studies showing that, for example, wearing a DOT-approved helmet is better than not, I haven't seen a study that takes that further and looks at full-face vs. I'm also of the opinion (based on some statistical and some anectdotal evidence) that the quality and quantity of your safety gear matters a ton. Other "high risk," rider-controllable items include excessive speed and actually having a valid license. Large percentages of motorcycle fatalaties (over 50% in recent years) involve alchohol use.